VOL.

214, SEPTEMBER 18, 1992 35 PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision of
National Irrigation Administration vs. AIC the then Intermediate Appellate Court.
G.R. No. 73919. September 18, 1992. *

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION AND The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL
NOCON, J.:
IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION,
petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and
APPELLATE COURT, ANDRES VENTURA, AN- set aside the decision of the then Intermediate
TONIO FAJARDO, MARCELO FAJARDO, ALFONSO Appellate Court
VEN-TURA AND FLORENTINO VENTURA, _______________
respondents.
Political Law; Doctrine of State immunity from suit; *SECOND DIVISION.
Government corporations performing proprietary 36
functions; NIA not immune from suit by express provision of 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Presidential Decree No. 552.xxx. As correctly ruled by the National Irrigation Administration vs. AIC
court below, the NIA is not immune from suit, by virtue of dated February 27, 1986 affirming the decision of the
1

the express provision of P.D. No. 552. A reading of Section then Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Fourth
2, sub-paragraph (f) of P.D. No. 552, amending Republic Act Judicial District, Branch VII in Civil Case No. 6244
No. 3601 shows the granting to NIA the power to exercise dated November 25, 1981 in ordering petitioners to pay
2

all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law,

private respondents damages, attorneys fees and the
insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act. Paragraph 4 of said law also provide that petitioner
costs.
NIA may sue and be sued in court for all kind of actions, It appears on record that private respondents Andres
whether contractual or quasi-contractual, in the recovery of Ventura, Antonio Fajardo, Marcelo Fajardo, Alfonso
compensation and damages as in the instant case Ventura and Florentino Ventura are leasehold tenants
considering that private respondents action is based on of a parcel of land consisting of about five (5) hectares of
damages caused by the negligence of petitioners. This Court riceland situated at Sitio Dagat-dagatan, Sto. Rosario,
had previously held that the National Irrigation Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija.
Administration is a government agency with a juridical Sometime in 1967, petitioner National Irrigation
personality separate and distinct from the government. It is Administration (NIA for brevity) constructed an
not a mere agency of the government but a corporate body irrigation canal on the property of Isabel and Virginia
performing proprietary functions as it has its own assets
Tecson which passed through the private respondents
and liabilities as well as its own corporate powers to be
exercised by a Board of Directors.
landholdings as said irrigation canal traverses the
Cinco-Cinco Creek which abuts said landholding. The said irrigation canal, the civil liability of the defendant
irrigation canal has two (2) outlets which provide should naturally be reduced.
private respondents landholdings with water coming WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby entered: 1) Ordering
from said canal and at the same time serve to drain the the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of P35,000.00
representing damages; 2) Ordering defendant to pay
excess water of said landholdings.
P5,000.00 for attorneys fees and the cost of the suit. 3

On February 13, 1975, private respondents filed a

Not satisfied with said decision, petitioners elevated the
complaint for the abatement of nuisance with damages
matter to the appellate court which rendered a decision
against petitioners NIA and/or the Administrator of the
on February 27, 1986 affirming in toto the decision of
National Irrigation Administration alleging that the
the trial court.
two (2) outlets constructed on both sides of the
Hence, this petition. It is petitioners position that
irrigation canal were not provided with gates to
the respondent appellate court erred in affirming the
regulate the flow of water from the canal to their
decision of the trial court because NIA is immune from
landholdings which resulted to the inundation of said
suit for quasi-delict or tort and assuming NIA could be
landholdings causing the former to sustain damages
sued, it is not liable for tort since it did not act through
consisting in the destruction of the planted palay crops
a special agent as required under paragraph 6, Article
and also prevented them from planting on their
2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
landholdings.
Petitioners are in error. As correctly ruled by the
After trial on the merits, a decision was rendered by
court below, the NIA is not immune from suit, by virtue
the court below on November 25, 1981, the pertinent
of the express provision of P.D. No. 552. A reading of 4

portion of which reads as follows:

_________________ Section 2, sub-paragraph (f) of P.D. No. 552, 5

__________________
1 Rollo, pp. 68-75. Ponente: Justice Ramon B. Britanico with the
concurrence of Justice Porfirio V. Sison, Justice Abdulwahid A. Bidin, Id., at p. 41.
3

Justice Marcelino R. Veloso and Justice Josue N. Bellosillo. Decision, pp. 5, 40, Record on Appeal; Page 71, Rollo.
4

5 Paragraph 4, Section 2(e) and (b), Republic Act No. 3601 as

2 Original Record on Appeal, pp. 36-41. Penned by Judge Leticia P.

Morales. amended by P.D. No. 552 provide that:

All actions for the recovery of compensation and damages against the National
37 Irrigation Administration under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) hereof, shall be
VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 18, 1992 37 filed with a competent court within five (5) years from the date of entry of the
land or destruction of the improvements or crops, after which period, the right
National Irrigation Administration vs. AIC of possession and/or ownership of the National Irrigation Administration shall
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds the complaint be considered vested and absolute. All other actions for the recovery of
meritorious. However, since there were typhoons and plant compensation and damages to private property and improvements occasioned
by the construction, operation and maintenance of irrigation facilities and
pests that reduced the harvests of the plaintiffs and that
other hydraulic structures under the administration of the National Irrigation
there were benefits that accrued to the plaintiffs by reason of Administration, which have accrued ten (10) or more years prior
 38 to the approval of this decree are deemed to have prescribed and are
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED barred forever.
(f) To establish/create such services and other means of social and economic
National Irrigation Administration vs. AIC assistance to the community which might be adversely and directly affected by the
construction of National Irrigation Administration projects, and to do all such other
amending Republic Act No. 3601 shows the granting to things, and to transact such business, as are directly or indirectly necessary,
NIA the power to exercise all the powers of a incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above powers and objectives,
including the power to establish and maintain subsidiaries, and in general, to
corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as they exercise all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as they
are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
Fontanilla vs. Maliaman, 194 SCRA 486 [1991].
Paragraph 4 of said law also provide that petitioner NIA
6

39
may sue and be sued in court for all kind of actions,
VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 18, 1992 39
whether contractual or quasi-contractual, in the
National Irrigation Administration vs. AIC
recovery of compensation and damages as in the instant
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
case considering that private respondents action is
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
based on damages caused by the negligence of governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
petitioners. This Court had previously held that the Thus, petitioners are liable for the damages caused by
National Irrigation Administration is a government their negligent act. Said the trial court:
agency with a juridical personality separate and On the issue of negligence, plaintiffs through the
distinct from the government. It is not a mere agency of testimonies of Andres Ventura, Florentino Ventura and
the government but a corporate body performing Prudencio Martin showed that the NIA constructed
proprietary functions as it has its own assets and
6 irrigation canals on the landholding[s] of the plaintiffs by
liabilities as well as its own corporate powers to be scrapping away the surface of the landholding[s] to raise the
exercised by a Board of Directors. embankment of the canal. As a result of the said
Paragraph 6, Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the construction, in 1967 the landholdings of the plaintiffs were
Philippines states that: inundated with water. Although it cannot be denied that the
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through irrigation canal of the NIA is a boon to the plaintiffs, the
a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused delay of almost 7 years in installing the safety measures such
by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in as check gates, drainage[s], ditches and paddy drains has
which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be caused substantial damage to the annual harvest of the
applicable. plaintiffs. In fact, Engineer Garlitos, witness for the
defendant declared that these improvements were made only
Article 2176 of said Code provides that:
after the settlement of the claim of Mrs. Virginia Tecson,
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
which was sometime in 1976 or 1977, while the irrigation
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
canal was constructed in 1976 [1967]. The testimonies of the
done. Such
_________________ plaintiffs essentially corroborated by a disinterested witness
in the person of Barangay Captain Prudencio Martin, proved grant of damages valid and proper. Besides, the amount
that the landholdings of the complainants were inundated awarded by the lower court is but just and reasonable
when the NIA irrigation canal was constructed without considering the circumstances of the case.
8

safety devises thereby reducing their annual harvest of 30 WHEREFORE, this petition for review on certiorari is
cavans per hectare (portions flooded). The failure [,] hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
therefore, of the NIA to provide the necessary safeguards to SO ORDERED.
prevent the inundation of plaintiffs landholding[s] is the Narvasa (C.J.,
proximate cause of the damages to the poor farmers. On the
Chairman), Padilla, Regalado andCampos, Jr.,
other hand, the defendant maintains that the cause of
JJ., concur.
inundation of plaintiffs landholdings was the check gate of
the Cincocinco creek known as Tombo check gate. However, Petition denied.
evidence showed that this check gate existed long before the Note.The Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA)
NIA irrigation canal was constructed and there were no is not immune from suit, it being engaged in functions
complaints from the plaintiffs until the canal of the NIA was pertaining to a private entity (Civil Aeronautics
built. The uncontested testimony of barrio captain Prudencio Administration vs. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 28).
Martin that the former name of the sitio where the plaintiffs
landholdings were located was Hilerang Duhat but was o0o
changed to Sitio Dagat-dagatan because of the inundation
was not without justification. 7 ________________
_________________
8Rollo, p. 75.
7Original Record on Appeal, pp. 40-41. 41
40 Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED reserved.
National Irrigation Administration vs. AIC
With regard to petitioners contention that the
respondent appellate court erred in awarding damages
to private respondents, We find said courts decision in
accordance with the evidence and the law. As correctly
held by the appellate court:
It has been established that the plaintiffs landholdings
were actually inundated. The testimonies by all the plaintiffs
with respect to the amount of the loss they suffered were not
impugned by any contradictory evidence of the defendant. To
Our mind, these testimonies are sufficient proof to make the